Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Classic Mr Fish - I have been found out so I will try a little insult as a diversionary tactic - you must think we are all as stupid as you are.

Come clever nuts - lay out your plan for LVT and then I will dismantle it for you!!

It's over on the correct thread

Try there

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:47 pm  

JerryChicken wrote: There is still plenty of leeway in which to express an opinion on any topic, be it political or not, without making ridiculous racial stereotyping part of an argument, for examples you simply need to look at the current incumbents in government who have been quite happy to use IDS and more often anonymous "Department Spokesperson" to vilify certain sections of society. As if by magic Comedian Kate Smurthwaite gives her opinion on free speech

JerryChicken wrote: There is still plenty of leeway in which to express an opinion on any topic, be it political or not, without making ridiculous racial stereotyping part of an argument, for examples you simply need to look at the current incumbents in government who have been quite happy to use IDS and more often anonymous "Department Spokesperson" to vilify certain sections of society. As if by magic Comedian Kate Smurthwaite gives her opinion on free speech

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:47 pm  

What about the Family Guy character 'Mort', a Jewish stereotype who is obsessed with money and the butt of many 'stingy' and 'money-grabbing' jokes. Is this character offensive or a mere jibe at the stereotype's expense?

Heh, expense...

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:03 am  

Personally bit bored of people being offended for minor things like Jews love money, they also like murdering Palestinian children, yet, don't seem to be as offended?

While we're on the subject of Jews...Judaism is a religion and people treat jews like a race(obviously because Israel is the only Jewish state).
Is insulting them bigotry or racism?
Seeing as Palestinians can be lumped in the semite group, are Jews anti semitic?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:26 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

Personally bit bored of people being offended for minor things like Jews love money, they also like murdering Palestinian children, yet, don't seem to be as offended?

While we're on the subject of Jews...Judaism is a religion and people treat jews like a race(obviously because Israel is the only Jewish state).
Is insulting them bigotry or racism?
Seeing as Palestinians can be lumped in the semite group, are Jews anti semitic?

The latest growth-industry is professional grief whores and people who make it their business to 'take offence'.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:25 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

The latest growth-industry is professional grief whores and people who make it their business to 'take offence'.

Its still a great improvement from the pre-1976 days when those who bemoan "political correctness" and "professional grief whores" were free in law to call anyone, any race or any minority whatever the hell they liked, and overtly discriminate against them with impunity - anyone younger than 40 will simply not comprehend what a more liberal approach to human rights can bring - when you take a phone call from a client (as I did one day) asking for you to remove an electrician from their workplace and replace him with one who wasn't black (they didn't use the word "black" though) THEN you will understand better.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:56 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its still a great improvement from the pre-1976 days when those who bemoan "political correctness" and "professional grief whores" were free in law to call anyone, any race or any minority whatever the hell they liked, and overtly discriminate against them with impunity - anyone younger than 40 will simply not comprehend what a more liberal approach to human rights can bring - when you take a phone call from a client (as I did one day) asking for you to remove an electrician from their workplace and replace him with one who wasn't black (they didn't use the word "black" though) THEN you will understand better.

It is a vast improvement but it is far from perfect, perhaps the balance has swung too far. The case in Rotherham is pertinent here, kids suffered because police were 'allegedly' afraid to intervene because of the fear of being seen as racists. Surely the protection of vulnerable children has a higher ranking in society than a perception of racism?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:48 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It is a vast improvement but it is far from perfect, perhaps the balance has swung too far. The case in Rotherham is pertinent here, kids suffered because police were 'allegedly' afraid to intervene because of the fear of being seen as racists. Surely the protection of vulnerable children has a higher ranking in society than a perception of racism?

From what I've read about Rotherham, it sounds like there were problems with how the Local Authority acted with too much political correctness for want of a better expression. However, the police should have investigated crimes a lot more objectively than they did. I don't know where the blame lies, but the police as a whole seem to have too cosy relationships with a lot of establishments.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:59 pm  

Political correctness went mad about 10 years ago, it's currently reaching the certified insane status.

I'm far from PC but I know when and where to tone it down.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:19 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It is a vast improvement but it is far from perfect, perhaps the balance has swung too far. The case in Rotherham is pertinent here, kids suffered because police were 'allegedly' afraid to intervene because of the fear of being seen as racists. Surely the protection of vulnerable children has a higher ranking in society than a perception of racism?

But, the situation is one of very many where, if "something had been done" at the time, before offences were committed, with the justification that "we are doing x, y and z to prevent young girls from being groomed etc", there would self-evidently never be any proof that they had saved a single person from anything. The criticism aimed at the authorities then would be that their actions were unnecessary, as the problem was imaginary, or at best, grossly disproportionate.

This btw is in no way apologist stuff for those authorities, but pointing out that their job is impossible, and so they have to do it and take the flak, since if no child is ever abused, they will still not be able to show that the reason is the "preventative" steps they took.

The only reason it is easier to "do something" now is because eventually gangs of men have been exposed, prosecuted and convicted and so the early victims have basically paid the price for becoming the justification for subsequent action, as nobody can any longer say "it never happens".